Monday, October 19, 2015

There. I've said it. As you know, I've had concerns recently that the SNP might be preparing to make itself the hostage of the polling industry. I've also been a tad worried that the party might be listening to siren voices like that of John Curtice, who if memory serves me right once suggested that a second referendum shouldn't be held until Yes had topped 60% in the polls for more than two years. (Although I naively thought the latter concern was a lesser one, because it was self-evidently such a ludicrous proposition.) My fears eased during the conference, because no specific target figures were mentioned - it was simply stated that a significant and sustained shift in public opinion would be a potential trigger for a referendum. That left plenty of leeway for common sense interpretations as the next parliamentary session progresses.

But now we suddenly learn that an "SNP source" has told the BBC that (barring Brexit) the party does not intend to hold a second referendum until Yes support has been at 60% for twelve months. That's almost as extreme as Curtice's suggestion. I hardly even know how to begin explaining just how daft this 'strategy' is.

1) The strategy doesn't inhabit the real world. I'm sure we all wish Scotland was like Norway in 1905, ready to euphorically link hands and vote for independence almost unanimously. We're not that fortunate, but everything is relative, because we are lucky enough (unlike civic nationalists in Wales and Northern Ireland) to live in a country where a majority is at least open to the idea of backing independence. However, that potential Yes majority is a relatively narrow one. Probably 40% of the population have such a strong emotional attachment to Britain that they are totally unpersuadable under any realistic circumstances. The 60% strategy therefore insists that practically every single person who is even theoretically persuadable should be firmly in the Yes camp for a full year. That is simply not going to happen.

Why should we even think that is a problem? In a democracy, 50% + 1 is sufficient. Obviously there are legitimate concerns about slippage in support once a referendum is actually underway, but if you ever want independence to happen, you have to work with what you've actually got, and what can realistically be achieved. 60% will not be attainable in anything close to the foreseeable future. Unless the SNP leadership is just cynically cooking up a mechanism for putting off a referendum indefinitely while allowing the grassroots to live in hope, the unofficial target figure should be considerably lower - probably more like 55% at the absolute most.

2) The strategy is driven by an extremely unsophisticated understanding of how public opinion is likely to shift during a referendum campaign. The Curtice suggestion seemed to be based on the hoary old myth that voters always swing dramatically back in favour of the status quo as a referendum approaches, and that you therefore need a mind-bogglingly enormous buffer before you can risk firing the starting gun. But as we've discussed before on this blog, the more important the issue being decided is, the less likely that this supposedly "iron law" will apply. There are several examples around the world of crucial constitutional referendums, not least our own vote last year and the Quebec referendum of 1995, in which there was actually a swing against the status quo over the course of the official campaign period. The reason is simple enough - the initial Yes vote is less likely to turn out to be 'soft' if it's an issue that people care about and have already thought about in quite a bit of depth.

So quality of support matters, not just quantity. I'd rather go into a campaign with a 55% Yes vote comprised of 51% 'firm' supporters and 4% 'soft', than have a 60% vote comprised of 40% 'firm' and 20% 'soft'. Presumably the reason for stipulating that the Yes vote has to be implausibly high for a full year is the belief that support can be assumed to be firm if it holds up for a long time, but that's entirely wrong-headed - look, for example, at the sustained lead Neil Kinnock had in the polls in 1989-90. A soft vote can very easily look consistent. You simply can't get a sense of how deep your support is by looking at headline voting intentions only - for the really useful information you have to drill down into the results of supplementary polling questions.

3) The strategy is looking for absolute safety which will never be available, even at 60%. If you catastrophise by looking at past examples of referendums where the Yes campaign has haemorrhaged support as polling day approached, the only rational conclusion to draw is that no level of Yes support is ever enough. I'm afraid we just have to accept that the electorate tends to behave unpredictably in referendum campaigns, and that it will never be possible to know the result in advance. We do not, thank God, live in North Korea.

4) The strategy hands far too much power to polling firms and their potentially questionable methodology. During the referendum campaign, there was a huge gulf between Yes-friendly and No-friendly pollsters, which simply couldn't be explained by margin-of-error effects. To this day, we have no way of knowing which camp was more accurate, because all of the results suddenly converged at the close of the campaign. But if, for the sake of argument, the Yes-friendly firms were closer to the truth, that means the methodology of No-friendly firms (most obviously YouGov's notorious "Kellner Correction") was artificially dragging down the average Yes vote by several percentage points. There's no reason to suppose that can't happen again, because a big divide has already opened up again between different pollsters (albeit we now have a completely different line-up of Yes-friendly firms).

So I can't deny it - I'm extremely disheartened by what we've heard today. The only consolation is that nobody in the SNP leadership has yet mentioned a target figure on the record, so there's still scope for them to quietly revise their position over the coming years as they realise how crazy it is. That might happen, for example, when Yes has been consistently hovering at 54% for a year or two, and people start scratching their heads and wondering aloud why that isn't enough.

Looks like the propoganda machine i.e, the Brtish Brainwashing Corporation has worked on you James Kelly. Or maybe you are not what you appear to be ! Either what you have written is rubbish.An SNP insider is it. And who excatly is this so called insider ? Time to stop this kind of lazy reporting ! Alba gu bràth

I do not think the SNP will postpone another referendum on independence indefinitely, nor do I think they have gone off the idea, which has been suggested in some quarters. I think they are trying to gradually go back on the idea of having one only once in a generation. As far as I can tell the SNP leadership look like they are manoeuvring for another referendum within 10 years, My guess is that leaves us looking at 2024 at the latest. I personally do not have a problem with that.

How exactly will this 2024 referendum be actioned if the SNP cannot command a majority in the Scottish Parliament to move the necessary enabling legislation?

Or are contending the SNP are going to pull a third rabbit out of the hat in 2021 and engineer yet a third absolute parliamentary majority in a proportional system (designed specifically to prevent such an outcome) after 14 years in government?

I agree with everything you say here, although I'd temper it by mentioning a couple of things:

1. It's an unnamed source in the BBC, so it might not be an accurate report, and even if it is, it could easily just be that one person's opinion.

2. If it does turn out to be the leadership's real line, I suspect it's more a way of getting the issue to go away and buy time until something big changes the equation, like the EU referendum or the prospect of permanent Tory rule. Hopefully it isn't a real belief.

As you say, waiting for 60% support for a full year is nutty and unrealistic.

If there is a statement from the leadership formally backing this claim then it's concerning. If there isn't then there's no story. It's the usual "senior party source" or "what we're hearing on the doorsteps" nonsense. Set up a straw man (or straw poll...) of 60% and then use it to beat the SNP with the familiar "but you said 60%" charge (in the same way as we've had the "but you said once in a generation" nonsense). I've no problem with choosing an optimum time to proceed, but 60% (over a year??) is just bizarre.

My worry is that they seem to expect support to continue to rise in the absence of:

1. An ongoing Yes campaign of any size, activity and official backing of any sort.

2. Resolution of such fundamental points as which currency options (fully worked out) that we favour.

3. An apparently timid SNP afraid to scare the horses and satisfy the appetite to make a properly different country with ALL the powers even slightly at our disposal. We will not become a different country until we feel like one. Having different banknotes and a different legal system etc don't count, they are too familiar and many who have never been anywhere else do not know they are different.

4. Some resolution about the BB fucking C. Something needs to be done even if it is a general boycott of it by all Yes parties, governing or not. If they can or will not play fair then we will not play. The status quo is not good enough.

The SNP's "timidity" is more a result of their being a party of government: they have to represent No voters as well as Yes voters, which can give the impression of them being lukewarm on indyref2. It's also why they're working with the BBC: they *have* to, as the governing party of Scotland.

The Yes Campaign's great success was the fact that the SNP put the power into the people's hands: we can't just keep looking to the SNP to tell us what to do and organise the campaign for independence. We have to do it ourselves. We messed up big time in letting Yes Scotland fold up following the referendum: it NEEDS to get back up and running.

The continuing campaign for independence has to be separate from the SNP, just as Yes Scotland was eventually. That's what Nicola's been saying when she talks about the people of Scotland deciding the next referendum: that won't happen in a vacuum.

All credit to the SNP and in reality Alex Salmond's ambitious lifetime independence goal for kick starting us in indyref 1 but let's not forget the grassroots groups such as RIC and non-aligned who took the campaign through the veins and arteries of the country and made it Our Campaign. Having been late to the party due to illness (though never doubted my yes vote) I may be talking pish if I say let's re-open the Yes shops and get the stalls going again, as I freely admit that I don't have inside knowledge of the financial and organisational skills involved, but I'd be there this time. We need to start campaigning and debating on the street NOW. It does't matter if we don't have a currency plan. The Greens have strong ideas for instance, let's debate it on the hoof. Let's take it out there

Note FM's assertion that "the people will decide(when the time for indyref 2 is right)" ....how will she/they know what the people are deciding if they don't see the campaign kicking off in all it's glory and diversity? I think the SNP would jump onto the bandwagon quickly enough, but whether or not James's post is based in reality or not, we're ont going to see them launch a campaign any time soon. i see "still Yes" stickers, I see blogs and FB pages full of supporters off Yes but I also observe "the movement" as an entity tearing itself to bits over party alignment. There's the opening for th grassroots groups of all or no party alignment to set up shop (literally). Who are you if you've done it before? Let's have the knowledge!

Can't say I agree, James: 30% at most, I'd say, were "totally unpersuadable" (and even then I don't believe in totalities). Certainly most of the polls I've seen suggest it might even be less than that - Ashcroft's post-indyref poll put it about 25% IIRC, which jibes with the "Scottish and British/British not Scottish" results of the last census.

I definitely feel that if we had devolved media it would be a very different story - which is, of course, why WM will never allow it, unless they concoct some plan to completely fudge it which ends up backfiring spectacularly a la devolution.

I would imagine that at least 35 per cent of voters in Scotland would in no circumstances vote Yes to independence. Whether that is because they are either British nationalists, people who believe everything the MSM tell them about independence, people who do very well out of the Union or some reason, they will not countenance voting Yes. That is why James and others are probably right about saying up to 40 per cent will never vote Yes to independence.

Paradoxically it is also why the No campaign did so poorly in only getting 55 per cent to vote No last year. Realistically they were almost assured of getting up to 50 per cent. That they were acknowledged to have run a good and efficient operation to get their vote out last September shows how much trouble the Union was and is in, because the margin was not nearly wide enough between the No and Yes votes. Remember they had the BBC and the rest of the MSM bombarding Scotland with threats and the unionist offers of much greater powers for Holyrood.

Heaven forbid anyone should feel allegiance to a nation they and their forefathers have been citizens of for 300 years. Gosh darn it don't they care that skeletons in graveyards all over the country are still fcking raging about the Act of Union?

For "SNP sources," read "a delegate or hanger-on I talked to at the SNP conference."

I was present at the conference, and I was extremely interested in knowing what everyone thought about indyref2. I talked to a LOT of people. I didn't hear a single utterance of "60% in polls for a full year" from any of the delegates, councillors, MSPs, MPs, or others. Sure, I heard a lot of *opinions* about changes in circumstances, wanting the next referendum to have a greater likelihood of victory, and so forth. But absolutely nobody put forward anything remotely like the BBC's cast-iron "we won't have another indyref until polls show 60% for a full year."

I'm guessing this is the media trying another "once in a generation"-style con-trick: convince people that the SNP "made a promise" that they'd only hold another referendum under specific circumstances, then suggest they've "broken" that "promise" when they do different.

Make no mistake, the media were relentless this past week in getting something from SNP delegates on indyref2. One organisation was even trolling and provoking us ("what, don't you *want* independence? I don't believe you want independence at all!" etc), but we weren't playing.

Out of all the online bloggers and commenters, I find myself aligning most often with your own, James: we will never be "ready," there will never be an ideal time, and if we spend all our time waiting for the best moment, it'll never come.

We are entering the Holyrood campaign, once again the canvass sheets ask the question "should Scotland be an independent country?".

Last year the people I was out with asked it sometimes, but didn't push it much, because we were just looking for our supporters, and did not realise why the party cared. I realised a few days ago that this question is crucial to feed back to Party HQ. A poll of 1000 people does not inform anywhere near as much as every door a party worker chaps.

So this winter, when you canvass, ask everyone. The SNP need to know. I think it is when they read consistent and comprehensive canvass returns we will go again.

Would the BBC source be called Kaye or Jackie? I don't even believe their sports results any more.

"So this winter, when you canvass, ask everyone. The SNP need to know. I think it is when they read consistent and comprehensive canvass returns we will go again."

Yes, times a thousand. When a No voter asks me why I'm still campaigning for independence, I reply "because we aren't independent yet." The campaign didn't stop on the 19th of September, and it won't stop until independence day.

Taranaich old chap you are only expressing an opinion on here courtesy of the Btits that fought Adolf. Scotland would not exist without them and you being a fundamentalist would be attending Hitler remembrance parties wearing your lederhosen.

"I admire your determination Taranaich but your endless campaigning is only likely to lead to independence fatigue and the feeling that the democratic vote isn't being respected."

Is Scotland independent, or in the process of becoming independent? No? Then the democratic vote is being respected. The other Unionist parties fought to prevent the first referendum taking place at all - that's the democratic vote not being respected. The Tories have voted down *every single* Scotland Bill amendment despite the parties which put the bills forward having 50-80% of the Scottish electorate's support - that's the democratic vote not being respected.

"Sometimes, you just need to give it a rest."

Yes, I'm sure that's how all major political and social changes were made - they gave it a rest.

But this isn't a great struggle against injustice - at some point football mated with politics and produced the Yes movement. Now you're on the verge of becoming the political version of Jehovah's Witnesses; "Oh Christ not them again, ignore it love".

Perhaps the amendments to the Scotland Bill were detrimental to Scotland or to the wider UK or both. As long as we remain a part of the UK, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish have a say in what happens here.

Did the unionist parties fight to prevent the ref after 2011? Rather pointless really, with an SNP majority. I know they fought it during the SNP minority government, as they were entitled to - the nationalists were a minority then and the unionists a majority.

Good for you James, it has to be said, even though I don't agree with you at all.

Which is the point of course, fight Holyrood to get the overall SNP majority, keep and get more NO voters onside to achieve that, then on to the next stage. Indyref2 around late 2017 / May 18, depending on the EU ref (council elections are May 2017).

Very handy for the SNP to have some nameless "senior SNP sources" available, full deniability but plausibility and gets the media going, slavering at the tonsils, biting dogs and kicking cats, keeping Indy Rref 2 alive without the SNP having to say a word.

Good game, good game, let's have a look at the old scoreboard. YES > 50%?

If this did genuinely come from an 'SNP source', then it's more about reassuring SNP-leaning no voters. Committed Yes voters should ignore it - does anybody really believe that a period of, for example, sustained support at 55% would not result in a 2nd referendum? Hence why it came from a source and will never be officially confirmed by the SNP leadership.

So where did 60% come from? Did the BBC just pluck it out of the air so they could bait people to confirm or deny it? Or did the SNP slip it into the public domain to keep the issue live and keep folk talking? Do the SNP think,by giving a high figure it will reassure No voters that another ref isn't on the horizon so they can safely vote SNP? I don't expect this figure to be officially and publicly confirmed.

Himmel Mein Gott you Nat sis are a really serious bunch of fruitcakes. Still singing songs about Charlie the shite coward that devastated our country for his god and claim. Now it is wee Nicola. Losers always will be.

Any independence supporter, in the SNP or out of it, who is asked anything by the BBC should say just two words, and the second is "off". They are going to misrepresent and lie whatever is said, so boycott Lord Haw Haw's spiritual descendants in Pathetic Quay.

C'mon GWC...how are you going to feel when you wake up one morning in the not too distant future and you're living in an independent Scotland. I, for one would love to hear from you. As for your nazi drivel, well anyone who really did live through that time would know better than to spout off casual comparisons. If you really expect that the Yessers will come for you on Independence Day that'd be a cause for concern but you know fine that you'll shrivel into your wee orange corner and nobody will pay you any attention at all. You're a sad pathetic excuse for an human being and you know it.

Immediately after the end of the conference, four first time conference goers were interviewed by the bbc and asked what thet thought about the experience. One woman said that she personally thought that indie ref 2 should not be triggered until the polls showed 60% for Yes. Hardly a senior source but she was a member so maybe...

BBC spoke to an un-named source at Conference? Most Sensible people avoided the BBC like the Plague just in case they be branded JK-Hating-CyberNats so that leaves the Elected officials and those have-a-go-Henerys stupid enough to think talking to a brick wall will do any good and general idiots. The later is likely the source!

The BBC has no creditability whatsoever in any of there alleged reporting about anything anywhere in the world they write there own facts to suit the establishment, end ofThe BBC spoke to an unnamed source, suspects are Glenn Campbell, Jackie Bird, Gordon Brown etc etc if anyone still believes anything that comes from that media bunch then they need to go and and see a shrink pronto.

Relax, SNP leadership know how to set ambitious targets, almost meet them, then sit back as the opposition make complete fools of themselves squealing: "but you only improved schools/hospitals/crime by a mere 40% instead of 50%." When cocky unionists are running around saying 55% support for independence isn't good enough we'll know it's soon game over!

As several here have already noted, and as a professional journalist, please allow me to add my two cents' er, pence worth that an un-named "source" in this context is laughably questionable at best.

For decades, our Washington-New York infotainers were notorious for citing un-named Democratic sources, spokesmen, aides, consultants, etc. fretting over infighting that didn't exist, candidates Clinton and Obama saying mean things about Republicans, and so on and on. Eventually that stopped because everyone realized that actions actually taken proved such was -- in the immortal words of Col. Sherman T. Potter -- "Mule Fritters!"

If I had ever turned in a story citing one un-named source, my editor would have demanded the source's name and position ... and then a second or third source for confirmation. Short of that, he would've leveled me with a stare that burned through lead.

If they actually cite a high-level SNP someone by name, then worry. Until then, it's not worth breaking a sweat.

The Scots are a Sovereign nation. As such we have the power to declare independence without the consent and approval of either government, our own or WM. Should we do so, Scotgov are dutybound to act on our behalf and negotiate the split. Shouldn't we be pushing for THAT, rather than another useless, questionably ran indyref which allows ONLY for Scotgov to petition WM to dissolve the Union? Anyone think WM will say aye to that?

The source was BBC's sophologist of choice Professor John Curtis. I don't think they spoke to anyone in the SNP. He has come up with the figure and the timescale based on general feeling. I would have to get up an look out the window if the BBC told me it was nightime, that's how little I trust them.

Remember the routine. Don't frighten the horses! There is a big election next year and it will be a game changer if the SNP get 70 MSPs. They need to maximise the vote for that and need some soft indi supporters and soft unionists. All will change next May that's my prediction. The BBC are full of shit!

It's nothing more than a crude, desperate con trick by BBC Labour. Sow a little bit of division here and there. They also want the SNP to confirm or deny this imaginary 60% strategy so they can fix a target for attack. No-one is taking the bait, however. At present, thanks to the skill of NS and colleagues, BBC Labour have nothing definite to attack and this is unsettling them. The silly season has begun. More nonsense all the way to May 2016, I'm afraid.

Yes James but who was it? I am a member so they could have asked me. It might have been an 18 year old, or a group of supporters. Like I said. Don't trust the BBC or the MSM, they have lied before and do it so easily with impunity.

I cant believe that anybody takes the BBC seriously as over the past few years their honesty has been non existent,truth and the BBC are not related as far as I can see. I'm a 63 year-old and been a member for a few years,cant recall when I first joined,but it was last century and I was never asked about it either.

I'd like to say that a majority next May would mean we are declaring our intent for independence,and local elections the following year if we take a majority in them then a simple declaration of citizens intention to resume total independence should be taken,perhaps each and every one of us needs to declare our sovereignty.I don't know but like to dream.

In the modern world, with a precedent set and with UK government oversight, the only way in which Scotland can become independent is if the pro indy side wins a majority in a UK government approved referendum. That is the ONLY way it can happen. And even then you have negotiations and a long and complicated process that may not end in the implementation of independence - the people may reject the terms of the split or a change of government at Holyrood may cancel the whole thing.

It's a long and winding road, with many ups and downs along the way. UDI after local elections? Oh please! My sides are aching!

It wouldn't surprise me if somebody stated that in an ideal world we wouldn't go for it till we had 60%. And in ideal world i would agree, but it is politics, not the ideal world. Yes it is scary to think of failing once more. And yes they will throw the kitchen sink at us once more. But to not try or to be bound by their rules means accepting failure without even trying.We have to do this again and soon... one or two years down the line, and a quick one so they cannot have time to fight back.

I also think we should be aggressive in our policy, demand that outside monitors are invited in. They will fight us but it is the fight that is important, keep them on the defensive.Demand that they issue their civil servants clear instructions not to intervene. Again they will not comply, but they have to respond and in doing so they have to defend their previous actions. Refuse to speak to un-elected Lords and Barons/esses, it makes the case for democracy and they have few tame Scots left. Let them squirm and complain, but refuse to engage with them in public in private or on a panel. Make their life hell, and do not play by their rules.

Salmond said there was more than one route to independence. He means we can never win anothr referendum run by the Brits. We will get our independence but it will not be by a referendum. It will just happen when we make it happen.

Nicola has her feet under the table now. A nice balance of reaping the rewards without shouldering the responsibilities. I except you lot to be next for the smackdown from her after the rev got his dish slapped yesterday.

Nice try Taranaich but they were voting on broad manifestos and Sturgeon specifically said multiple times "this is not about independence". That means her 55 MPs plus the disgraced former one can't claim a mandate to push for independence at any point in the next 5 years.

It would appear independence has been kicked into the long grass. In fact, scrub that - it's now somewhere beyond the orbit of Pluto.

The SNP would appear to be cosy in their position. A second defeat would humiliate them. A victory would mean actually doing something. Far better to kick back, through the indy loyalists the occasional wee glimmer of hope, and not actually do anything.

Or it could be that they've done some growing up. A 51-49 split is no way to start a new country, especially when things will be very difficult for a long time. A 60-40 majority, hell, even I could live with that!

I don't believe 40% of the population have an unbreakable emotional feeling towards Britain. Did Better Together's own polling not find it was closer to 20%?

I think it's 20% British emotion which includes those who are quintessentially British (legitimate feeling for those who may be born in England brought up in Scotland etc as it is also a legitimate feeling under any circumstance). I think for the other 80% virtually no emotional feeling was considered for Britain and it was purely an economic prospect which brought the victory to No.

That's not to say I think 80% are open to independence but I think they are full square emotionally attached to Scotland/another nationality and have a very ambivalent view of Britishness.

I've also never heard any compelling counter argument to the older No voters no longer being with us argument. Surely, thousands are going to drop off the No scale fairly quickly? I know it's morbid and don't take pleasure in it but it's hard facts.

It's clear the power bearers are going to come from a Yes leaning demographic in 10-15 years time. See no reason to think this could not see the independence argument take on a level of support No had before the campaigns started. The emerging accepted majority opinion, if you will.

It's 60% of those voting anyway, not 60% of the electorate. Don't see why that could not be achieved.

I think James himself poured cold water on the "we just have to wait for the coffin dodgers to die" strategy. For one thing, opinions change as people age. Secondly, the 16-24 age group voted in favour of the union. Finally, in all the decades in which this issue has been polled, the pro independence option has never achieved a stable lead - and this polling was confirmed by the result of the referendum. Do you really expect people to believe that a few years of burying people will resolve a decades, nay, centuries old problem?

The very notion of Scottish independence lacks credibility - and, until you fix that, you deserve to lose and will lose.

According to a very comprehensive report from Edinburgh University in March this year, in IndyRef -

62.5% of 16 - 19 yr olds voted Yes

51.4% of 20 - 24 yr olds voted Yes

55.2% of 25 - 39 yr olds voted Yes

50.6% of 40 - 49 yr olds voted Yes.

The difference with these groups getting older is that their voting habits will not mirror the elderly at the moment - because, unlike the present OAP's who have spent most of their lives being ruled direct from WM and seeing that as the "norm", the younger, Yes-Voting age groups, will have have hada substantial part, most or all of their experience under Devolution and see a Scottish Parliament and Scottish Govt as the new "norm".

Big difference in mindset and every reason to believe that the "youngsters" will see the move to Independence as the logical next step.

Scottish Independence lacks so much credibility, that it attracted 45% of Scots last year and is now attracting (according to John Curtice) 50% at present, with around 60% wishing another Referendum on that very thing.

Your logic is illogical, patronising, out-of-step with the present realities and plain dumb.

The vast majority of polling continues to show a unionist advantage. The most recent poll suggests pro indy sentiment static on the 45% they achieved in the referendum.

Scottish independence does lack credibility. It can't get a stable majority in support. Its proponents can't answer crucial questions on currency, the EU and the deficit. When population sizes and geography are taken into account, it makes sense that we stay united. It makes no sense to isolate and impoverish our people for the sake of a flag. The people confirmed this last year, when they rejected independence by a large margin - and that was before our oil and steel industries went kaput.

Waiting for old people to die (how lovely!) wont cut it. They will simply be replaced by new old people and at a greater rate due to our ageing population. You have to win the argument - which is basically a cost/benefit one and that is impossible to do.

The trouble with the "older No voters no longer being with us" argument is that I've been hearing it for 40 years now and it's simply not "hard fact". It's a fallacy. As people get older they're more likely to opt for the staus quo and less likely to take risks, imagined or otherwise.Support for independence always surges when independence is "the live issue", and subsides the rest of the time. It's like a wave you have to catch before it breaks. Or a bus. And we keep footering around, missing the bus.

The bus is mythical. You run for it and it turns out to be a mirage. There is no bus there. In the highly unlikely event the bus ever turns out to be real, it'll be manned by Blakey and Butler and you'll be straight over the nearest cliff.

Heard this a couple of times. of course, it's true but are you telling me you'd rather rely on that than have these people's initial opinions in your favour? It's clear who is in the stronger position.

It's weak. Of course, some will change opinion. On both sides but if the prevailing wind is with one camp, I'd rather have that.

"Do you really expect people to believe that a few years of burying people will resolve a decades, nay, centuries old problem?"

If the "problem" is having more yes voting people in your population to "no" voting then the answer is clearly yes. It's the emerging population's opinion that will matter in the next referendum. The opinon of those centuries ago, a decade ago or even last week are irrelevant.

If they're not there to vote, their vote isn't counted. I'm still not hearing a good counter argument to it. The time is quite clearly with one side.

You are arguing over semantics. For all practical purposes, we have been a single nation / country (whatever you wish to call it) for 300+ years. Resources shared, same tax rate, same currency, single armed forces, single government (SG is a subsidiary of that government, not 'a government'), same foreign policy, same national anthem, same head of state, open border. Britain is a country. Scotland used to be a country. I would argue that it isn't a country any more in any meaningful or commonly understood sense of the word. But that's us getting into semantics once more. The fact of the matter is we have stood together for over 300 years and now the SNP / indy movement want us to stand apart. They didn't demonstrate why such a move would be safe / beneficial and were gubbed. Plain and simple.

Can you point to a single instance in polling history where support for Scottish independence has sat at 60% or more? It was momentarily at 58%, back in 2006 and, again, momentarily at 55% about 6 weeks ago. But 60%? It's never been achieved. They want to achieve it, for a year running, with the oil industry collapsing?

You've been had. You are being had. They are quite happy to say "we lost and can't risk losing again" while perpetually kicking the can further down the road and taking your votes at the same time. I mean, what do you expect intelligent people to do? They're not going to risk destruction of their party or destruction of the country. So they have chosen this middle path of 'stay in the UK and tie independence to unattainable conditions'. I am reminded of Gordon Brown's 5 conditions for euro entry. They weren't met either - they were never designed to be met (much like the SNP's indyref triggers).

If the Scottish government want to shore up welfarism, they can do so by raising taxation in Scotland under the new devolved settlement. Personally, I can't wait - can't wait - to see Scotland paying for its socialist ideas. I think the tory party will see its membership and support explode when Sturgeon increases taxes - so bring it on.

It's the way it went for many countries which were formally British. Australia and New Zealand for example. NZ doesn't even have an independence day; nobody knows exactly when it was.

The EU ref I suppose could see the rUK vote to leave the union with Scotland and the EU if it votes out and Scotland votes in. Would be the rUK doing to the leaving.

In that event, Westminster would pass a motion to leave the EU and Holyrood would just not pass it as Scots had voted against. That would set in motion negotiations on independence as the rUK can't take Scotland out of the EU if Scots have voted No to that; would be in breach of their human rights as EU citizens if anything. Likewise if wouldn't be Scotland choosing to become independent, but the rUK choosing to do that.

States have EU membership, not bits of states. If Britain leaves the EU, Scotland leaves the EU with it, as part of Britain. It is possible that there would then be another indyref and, if successful, an attempt by Scotland to re enter the EU. This may not prove successful - in which case we'd be completely isolated (no UK, no EU). If we do get in, we take Schengen, the Euro and VAT on food - things we currently enjoy opt outs from - and accept we will basically be ruled by Germany as a small, inconsequential EU state.

After all, the EU would not be chucking the UK out, but the UK would be withdrawing itself. If all EU laws remain in place in Scotland, EU citizens remain there with all current rights... Scots retain their EU citizenship etc, how does Scotland become 'out'? Would an expansionist organisation like the EU force out a part of the EU which has been in it for decades when that bit didn't want to leave?

At the same time, businesses small and large in Scotland would be up in arms about being taken out of the EU single market and demanding Scotland remain in the EU.

People would be on the streets about having their EU citizenship under threat even though they voted to retain it. European countries would be getting petitions from their citizens resident in Scotland calling for them to back Scotland remaining. EU votes unanimously for Scotland to be allowed to remain (with the UK not getting a vote as it was exiting).

The Scotland Act is intimately tied with EU membership (ECHR law etc). No way Holyrood could vote to put its future at risk by passing an EU exit into Scottish Law.

In 1973, we joined as the United Kingdom - not Scotland, England, Wales and NI. If we leave, we do so as one unit and it will then be for the UK to thrash out its own internal problems, outwith the EU.

The ECHR is a different thing to the EU. You can leave the EU and stay in the ECHR. Russia is in the ECHR - hilariously! Last time I looked, Russia wasn't in the EU.

By the way, all of this is most already. The vote will be IN. You have the entire political establishment - SNP included - arguing for IN. You have Farage and maybe Boris Johnson arguing for OUT. This is done already!

And with the "IN" vote secured for another 40 years, the SNP will very quickly find itself on the wrong side of history as it argues for division in the face of reaffirmed european unity.

Guys, seriously, you need to forget polls for a day or two and very quickly swot up on the basics of the constitution. Holyrood is a devolved parliament dealing with local issues. Foreign policy, treaties and the constitution are reserved matters for Westminster. Holyrood can't block, veto or in any way impede the UK's exit from the European Union. It would be like Falkirk Council trying to block Holyrood's education reforms. If it isn't within your remit, you simply don't get a say in it.

As a unionist, I've never been happier. We won the referendum, the economic case for independence has collapsed, and Nicola Sturgeon has basically decided indyref 2 will coincide with the 2nd coming. The pro indy movement has descended into farce and SNP politicians are increasingly being revealed as having feet of clay. This is a very good time to be a unionist!

It is testament to the desperation of the separatists that you fixate on a stooshie over the EU as your potential saviour. Of course, the likelihood is an "IN" vote will be achieved - leaving the SNP carping from the sidelines as a rather irrelevant, spent force - on the wrong side of history, as well as the wrong side of economics.

So you expect a Farage / BoJo alliance to triumph? Against Cameron, Corbyn, Sturgeon, the Greens, the Lib Dems?

That would be something. Don't see it though. Yes 2 AV had some poll leads, back in 2010. They got smashed. I see this as a similar sort of thing.

My interest in leaving the EU waned when I discovered we'd still be bound by all the human rights crap regardless. I think a lot of people are still labouring under the misapprehension that an EU exit will instantly solve all problems europe related. I expect the IN camp to put them right on that.

What I do not get with the Nat sis is why they want to dump the Union and become a cabbage patch in the EU. You must really hate your neighbour who has welcomed Scots in their tens of thousands. You Nat sis need to come clean and explain your gripe.

The people in Scotland are sovereign unlike England. The Scots parliament was never abolished it was adjourned. If the will and majority of Holyrood is to leave the UK we can. However as the SNP are Democrats they will not do it that way.

It's important to point out the power does not reside in Westminster. They like to fool the people that it does. We have a democratic Scottish government,who will only leave with the will of the people. The Edinburgh agreement was just a piece of paper where two governments agreed to respect each other and the outcome of the referendum.

It was never necessary. Indeed even without the Scottish parliament. The Scottish Mps could withdraw from Westminster and reconvene the Scottish parliament. Again because they are Democrats it hasn't happened. Theoretically it could.

Nonsense. The United Kingdom is a unitary state with one sovereign parliament, in London. When Scotland and England merged (something we have rather misleadingly referred to as a 'union'), both countries effectively ceased to exist - and the UK (esessentially, a new nation), was created.

If you are happy that the gap between SNP and the first Unionist Party up here has just jumped to 39 points according to the latest Opinium UK Poll yesterday, that the SNP are poised to take a third term in office with an increased majority, that support for Independence has now grown to 50% - and that is during a period of depressed oil prices - and that 60% of Scots wish a second Referendum, you are even more cranium-in-rectum than I thought.

No problem, though.

At least you won't be needing the Happy Pills the rest of your lot seem to eat by the bucket-load.

UK subsamples are useless for determining what is happening in Scotland and have a huge error associated. Didn't James cover this with you?

Support for indy now at 50%. No it's not. High forties with don't knows excluded, mid forties otherwise. In other words, no net change in the last year.

Holyrood is part PR. If pro indy support falls even by a few percentage points then, depending on voter distribution, the unionists can take control of Holyrood. It's a greater danger than you might think.

Why am I happy? Well, I can see the way the long game will play out. The SNP will probably win next year but it will be a useless 5 years as far as advancing indy is concerned. You have bound yourselves up with all these supposed triggers - triggers that will never be activated. By the time 2021 comes along, the union parties will be resurgent. By the time 2026 comes along, oil will be totally f!@#ed and 2014 a distant memory. Labour may even be back in at UK level.

I see your cause stagnating David - and thank Christ for that. I can't even begin to imagine what Scotland would be like with thin skinned folks like you running it, unchecked.

I say 3.6 million people voting in a ballot that actually matters trumps any academic study.

If a referendum were called now, what would be the answers on currency, oil, the deficit, the EU? Those issues haven't gone away. In a couple of instances, they've become even more pressing / urgent. Meanwhile, nat horror stories haven't materialised. The NHS hasn't been privatised. Holyrood hasn't been dissolved. The Vow has been delivered.

If it was ran again now, you'd get an absolute drubbing - perhaps even worse than 2014.

I am fully aware of the shortcomings of sub-samples, but even they can show a pattern with the usual caveats.

According to Prof John Curtice's latest poll of polls, it is now an exact 50/%0% split on Indy, so you are, once again, wrong.

There is as much chance of Unionists gaining control of Holyrood, as there is of you becoming credible on here. I believe Paddy Power are giving brilliant odds against both at the moment.

Things will, undoubtedly, happen at a faster pace than your little Unionist brain(?) can comprehend - and there is certainly NO evidence that the Unionist trash will "re-surge" anywhere in the foreseeable future.

The price of oil, inevitably, will rise again and the North Sea will continue to be a great bonus for Scotland for decades to come.

There is absolutely no evidence whatever that my cause is stagnating - quite the contrary in fact.

On the other hand - and with this totally inept, incompetent and dogmatically cruel Tory Filth in Government at a UK level (probably for at least the next decade), there is every reason to believe that more and more Scots will want completely and utterly shot of that shite.

Come to think of it..........I am very happy at the way things are going up here.

Ah, so your 50-50 figure includes an extreme outlier that sticks out like a sore thumb. I should have known. In reality, the seps are no further forward.

Labour in the high twenties, tories in the mid teens and lib dems high single digits would, according to Scotland Votes, see SNP/Green reduced to below 65 MSPs. It's unlikely - but then so was the tory majority government, before it actually happened.

The tories are balancing the books of this country and getting the economy back on its feet after lefties wrecked it, again. They are reducing welfarism and trying to make people self sufficient again - they should be applauded for it.

Happy days ahead? Keep telling yourself that mate. You know you don't believe it. This entire thread is about the SNP running away from its core policy at breakneck speed :0)

Which was the extreme outlier, Aldo? Was it TNS, showing Yes on 53%, or Ipsos-Mori, showing Yes on 55%? Don't those figures seem quite similar to you? Are we to take it that the Aldo Poll of Polls excludes all polls that you've unilaterally decided "must" be wrong? It's the bridalwear firm only from now on, chaps!

This site's own poll of polls, like others, now shows the SNP on 53% on the constituency vote and 47 on the list - Labour are at 21% on both.

Your "figures" are nothing but fantasy from a Unionist who has now nothing else, in Scotland, to grab onto.

The Tories are destroying our Welfare State with absolutely no thought or care for the poorest and most vulnerable - including the working poor.Even many of their own members in both Houses are sickened by this dogmatic blitz and are rebelling.

The Tories are Political Filth of the highest order and are only interested in protecting those at the top end of society - as they have always done.They and their support are nothing but a blight on British Politics and it is to Scotland's great credit that they are languishing at the very low level they now have up here.

Marginal, unimportant, derisory crap is all they are, north of the Border.

The SNP are certainly the best organised, most credible, most popular and most successful Party in these islands - that much is for sure.

You need a right of centre, conservative, small state option. Healthy democracies have a left and right wing. Scotland has pretty much left wingers - about 88% of our parliament made up of them. We are certainly the most left wing country in Europe.

Which is another reason imo why Scotland is unfit to govern itself. Perpetual left wing governments destroy economies and create / perpetuate the very poverty they wish to alleviate. The SNP is anti wealth, anti aspiration, anti prosperity. They, left unchecked, would run Scotland into the ground.

There is a moral dimension to getting people off welfare and into work. Work gives life meaning. Families who work are more likely to value education and respect property and the value of money. They are more likely to take pride in their homes and surroundings.

All the tory government is trying to do is get people to be self sufficient again. Better this natural human state as spending a lifetime on welfare.

Success isn't measured in terms of how popular you are. It is measured in what you do and achieve. The tories are streets ahead of the seps.

Scotland is a very healthy democracy and is democratically keeping the swivel-eyed loons on the Right, firmly in their place - in the gutter.

Unfit to govern itself, because the Scottish People do not elect dogmatic Right-Wing Nutters, eh?

Yep, you are definitely the resident Site-Idiot, pal.

SNP is none one of the epithets you posted - and it is very evident that they are the ONLY Party capable of speaking for Scotland, with a massively larger majority with their Electorate than the Tory Twats down south have with theirs.

I am old enough to have watched Thatcher and her cohorts decimate Scotland's heavy industries and lay waste to massive tracts of the Central Belt in terms of jobs and prospects. The effects on whole communities was horrendous and had a knock-on effect on a major explosion of mental health problems thereafter.

I also watched - and protested - at her use of my Country as a test-bed for the iniquitous Poll Tax, a year earlier than everywhere else.

Tories have no morals - they are political scum.

All the Tories are trying, very openly, to do is shrink the Welfare State back to pre-war dimensions and to hell with those at the bottom end of society who will suffer most.

They are a prime example of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

A Country's success is measured by how equal and fair its society is, how wealth is spread and how the most vulnerable are looked after.

On all these measures of a civilised society, the Tories fail abysmally.

Scots are a proud and fair people who have achieved many great things.

They will continue to do so - without the dead-weight of the Tory Party to hold them back.

The Tories are detested by the vast majority up here.

That detestation is both wise and well-founded and it is not going to change for the foreseeable future.

No wonder wee Tory Unionists like you, look so out of place on a Scottish site like this.

You are nothing more than a wee annoyance - like something on the sole of my boot.

I reckon it is likely to be just nonsense from the BBC.If the SNP leadership ever comes out with this as an 'official' target, then the SNP will split.

No-one who believes in independence is going to continue voting for a party that intends to postpone it indefinitely just to keep themselves in a job.

Apart from the valid points in the article, as Taranaich mentions above we also have to consider the heavily unionist media landscape in Scotland.Indy support rose from the low thirties during the referendum campaign, party because the focus was on the constitution and possibilities, and people were talking about it everywhere, sidelining the usual channels that dampen aspiration in 'normal' times

If this is an SNP strategy for Holyrood, then I think it is was extremely foolish to even mention a figure, unofficial or not.Only after independence will we have huge majorities in favour, and very few will want to go back. Self government will become the new status quo where there is natural resistance to change, or cause any 'division' that might offend others.

BBC: What do you think would be the ideal precursor to INDY2 vote? What about a 60% poll lead?SNP 'insider': Well, of course that would be greatBBC: What about 60% for a year?SNP: Well, that's even betterBBC: SNP want a 60% lead in the polls for a year before Indy2